it is a view most homosexuals have long since adopted. As for the suggestions that homosexuals avoid one another's company (likely to weaken will power), I think the Church itself would reconsider this if facilities were established where homosexuals could gather in an atmosphere more healthy than in bars and baths. Here the Church might offer a considerable service. . .

Quite surprising was the tentative suggestion that "Two inverts who are congenial may find their salvation in an enterprise of 'home-making' and it is arguable that society should encourage them, and should not impute to them the basest of motives." It is elsewhere suggested that only men who sublimate the physical side are capable of such stability.

There are two ways to look at this report and its appendices: as they are directed to the attention of society and particularly the government; and as they constitute recommendations as to how the invert ought to conduct his life. The latter part is open to considerable criticism as unscientific, impractical and generally as bad advice. But of the former there is no ground for criticism, from the homosexual viewpoint. Certainly any homosexual would be happy to see the repeal of the really unfair laws. And just as surely, most homosexuals would like to see more

specific and sensible definition of the laws involving child molesters, public nuisance and crimes of violence.

It is to be hoped that this bold position will not merely add fuel to current anti-Church feelings in England. At least since the drab Margaret mess, many papers (including some of the most vivid homo-baiters) have tended to resent any statement whatsoever by Churchmen on sex, marriage, politics, colonies, or any other matter supposedly "none of their business." While not denying that some clerics have made some indefensible statements, nor implying that only the rabid segments of the press favor disestablishing the Church (even some Churchmen favor this) one must recognize that moral and social concerns are the Church's proper business, though by no means the Church's monopoly.

One can only hope that some American churches will overcome their un-Christian timidity and conservatism and look into this matter with the degree of objectivity exhibited by the Church of England. It is particularly disappointing that churches which pretend to liberalism have kept silent.

Despite the few criticisms made here, I think I can speak for most homosexuals in England and America in expressing the warmest gratitude to the Moral Welfare Council and particularly to Derrick Sherwin Bailey for this revolutionary report.

You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.

John, Viscount Morley